Nathalie Dreyfus

Introduction

The French Digital Republic Act of October 7, 2016 laid the foundation for a structured regulatory framework governing online platforms in France. It introduced transparency, fairness and accountability obligations designed to rebalance the relationship between platforms, professionals and users.

In an ecosystem now largely shaped by the GDPR and the Digital Services Act (DSA), these obligations must be reassessed and updated. In this article, we offer a comprehensive analysis of the actual scope of the statutory provisions: first, what the law truly provides for, and then how those provisions fit into a legal landscape that has been profoundly reshaped since 2016.

Core obligations imposed on online platforms

Legal definition of online platforms

The Digital Republic Act introduced a precise definition of online platforms, formerly codified in the old Article L.111-7 I of the French Consumer Code. Services were considered platforms when they professionally offered, whether for remuneration or not, an online communication service to the public based on:

• The ranking or referencing of content, goods or services;
• The facilitation of interactions between several parties for the purpose of a transaction.

This definition covered a broad range of services: comparison tools, marketplaces, directories, search engines, social networks and intermediation services.

Its purpose was clear: to acknowledge the significant influence of these operators and to establish a protective framework built on three core principles, transparency, fairness and responsibility.

Article L.111-7 I of the Consumer Code was revoked in 2022. The applicable definition is now the one set out in the Digital Services Act, which qualifies an online platform as any intermediary service that stores and makes information accessible to the public at the request of users.

Differentiation between operators

The law distinguishes between:

• Online platform operators, subject to general transparency rules;
• Influencer platforms or hyperscale operators, now primarily regulated at the EU level by the DSA.

This structure enables obligations to be calibrated according to the platform’s economic influence.

Strengthened transparency and fairness requirements

Enhanced information obligations

Article L.111-7 of the French Consumer Code requires platforms to inform users of the criteria determining the ranking of content or offers. This information must be clear, intelligible and easily accessible.

This obligation, innovative in 2016, anticipated today’s concerns regarding algorithmic manipulation and the transparency of recommendation systems.

Disclosure of contractual relationships

Platforms must also indicate whether the advertiser or seller is acting as a professional, a consumer, or an uncertified reseller.

This enables users to determine whether consumer protection provided by law applies.

Identification of sponsored content

The law requires clearly identifiable disclosures when content has been paid for or promoted.
These provisions foreshadowed today’s standards set by:

• The ARPP (French Autorité de régulation professionnelle de la publicité) for influencers,
• The DSA for digital services,
• Established case law on hidden advertising.

Increased accountability of digital actors

Reporting mechanisms

Platforms must provide a user-friendly mechanism enabling individuals to report illegal content, including: counterfeiting, hate speech, privacy violations, fraud, and other unlawful activities.

This obligation strengthens the notice-and-takedown regime established by the French Law on confidence in the digital economy (LCEN) of June 21, 2004 by requiring faster action.

Communication of pre-contractual information

When a platform connects professionals, sellers or service providers with consumers, it must provide a space enabling them to communicate the pre-contractual information required under Articles L.221-5 and L.221-6 of the French Consumer Code.

Fair information on online reviews

Since the French Decree of September 29, 2017, adopted to clarify the Digital Republic Act, platforms displaying reviews must disclose:

• Their moderation methods,
• Any financial consideration,
• Their verification methodology.

These obligations aim to reduce fake reviews, a major concern for both the DGCCRF and French courts.

Interactions with European regulations

Compatibility with the GDPR

The Digital Republic Act paved the way for enhanced personal data protection, now fully governed by the GDPR.

Platforms must ensure:

• Lawful and transparent processing,
• Data minimisation,
• Protection of sensitive data,
• Security measures proportionate to the risks.

The Act has been largely absorbed by this EU framework while retaining its additional economic transparency requirements.

Complementarity with the Digital Services Act

The DSA, applicable since 2024, has established a comprehensive EU-wide regime for platforms. The DSA notably imposes increased responsibility on platforms regarding the moderation of illegal or harmful content. They must implement mechanisms to detect and remove such content, failing which they may face sanctions.

French Digital Republic Act remains relevant, particularly for:

• Economic fairness obligations,
• Online review regulation,
• Consumer information duties.

Oversight and sanctions

The competent authorities include: the DGCCRF, CNIL, Arcom, and civil and criminal courts.
Sanctions can include fines, corrective measures, and even temporary bans on operations.

Practical considerations for professionals

Businesses operating a platform must now navigate several layers of regulation: the Digital Republic Act, LCEN, GDPR, DSA and the French Consumer Code.

To ensure robust compliance, platforms must:

• Map national and EU obligations,
• Document ranking criteria,
• Enhance algorithmic transparency,
• Structure moderation procedures,
• Anticipate regulatory requests,
• Update their terms of use, privacy policies and notices.

Conclusion

The Digital Republic Act remains a fundamental component of the French regulatory framework for online platforms. It establishes an environment based on transparency, responsibility and user protection, now reinforced by the GDPR and the Digital Services Act. Businesses must adopt an integrated approach combining legal compliance, algorithmic governance and consumer protection to secure their digital operations.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1.Can a platform be held liable for content posted by a user?
Yes. A platform becomes liable if it fails to remove manifestly illegal content promptly after being informed of it.

2.Can a user challenge a platform’s decision to remove content?
Yes. Platforms must provide an internal complaint mechanism allowing users to contest removal or delisting decisions. Under the DSA, this mechanism must be accessible and include human review.

3.Can French law require a platform to disclose the identity of a user who posted illegal content?
Yes, but only under strict conditions. Disclosure can only be ordered by a judicial authority when there is evidence of illegal activity.

4.Must a platform located outside the EU comply with French law when targeting French users?
Yes. If it targets the French or EU market, it remains subject to local legislation.

5. What best practices should online platform operators adopt?
Platform operators should implement a comprehensive compliance strategy that integrates both national and European legal requirements. This includes documenting ranking criteria, strengthening transparency in commercial practices, structuring content moderation procedures, ensuring the reliability of online reviews, and regularly updating terms of use, privacy policies and mandatory disclosures.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance to the public and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or constitute legal advice.

Introduction

The significant increase in trademark fees in the Middle East has become a key strategic parameter for any company operating in or planning to expand in the region. Far from being a simple, one-off budgetary adjustment, this development reflects a structural transformation of public intellectual property policies. Several Middle Eastern states have undertaken in-depth reforms of their national trademark offices, resulting in a marked revaluation of filing, registration, renewal, and post-registration fees.

This evolution directly affects the budget planning of international groups, the structuring of their trademark portfolios, and their regional expansion strategies. A rigorous legal and economic analysis is therefore essential to secure intangible investments in these rapidly evolving jurisdictions.

A marked and progressive increase in trademark fees in the Middle East

The first increases: a turning point in the United Arab Emirates

The first significant changes appeared in 2015 in the United Arab Emirates, with a substantial revision of official fees applicable to trademark filings, publications, and registrations. This reform marked a clear break from nearly a decade of relative fee stability.

Subsequently, Kuwait followed a similar trajectory, introducing an even more pronounced increase in administrative costs related to registration formalities. More recently, Bahrain and Syria have also revised their fee schedules upward, affecting filing procedures and pre-registration stages.

In Saudi Arabia, the restructuring implemented by the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property led to a reassessment of registration and renewal fees as part of a broader economic modernization policy.

These adjustments have reshaped the economic balance of regional trademark protection strategies. The Gulf countries now rank among the most expensive jurisdictions for trademark registration.

An aggravating factor: the single-class filing principle

A significant feature of several Middle Eastern jurisdictions is the requirement to file a trademark application on a single-class basis. Unlike the multi-class system in force within the European Union and other international countries, each class requires a separate application and, consequently, separate official fees.

For companies operating across diversified sectors, this rule has a direct and substantial impact on overall protection budgets. A trademark covering five classes entails five distinct procedures and five sets of official fees.

This structural constraint mechanically amplifies the financial impact of the fee increases observed in recent years.

A more demanding local procedure: strengthened documentary formalities and increased compliance requirements

Beyond official fees, local procedures frequently require the submission of specific documents. Authorities may request legalized powers of attorney, priority documents, or additional certificates depending on the circumstances.

These formalities must comply with strict deadlines. Failure to meet these deadlines may result in refusal of registration or loss of priority rights. In certain jurisdictions, notarization or consular legalization procedures remain mandatory, thereby extending processing times and generating indirect costs.

The regional trend also reflects stricter formal and substantive examinations. Trademark offices now scrutinize applications more rigorously. While this enhances the legal security of registrations, it requires applicants to prepare their filings with greater precision and strategic planning.

The economic and legal foundations of the fee increase: modernization and regional harmonization

One of the main explanations for the increase in trademark fees lies in the modernization of public intellectual property services. Gulf states have invested heavily in the digitalization of procedures, the creation of online platforms, and improved access to trademark databases.

This administrative upgrading requires additional financial resources, which partly justifies the revaluation of official fee schedules.

The evolution of fees must also be understood within the context of legislative harmonization among the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The revised GCC Trademark Law aims to unify substantive rules applicable in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Protection remains national in scope and requires a separate filing in each country. Nevertheless, the harmonization of procedural and substantive rules contributes to the modernization and coherence of the regional system.

Strategic consequences for businesses

The significant increase in trademark fees in the Middle East requires companies to reassess their portfolio strategies. Businesses must now make precise determinations regarding priority territories, genuinely exploited classes, and renewal timelines.

A purely expansive filing strategy is no longer economically neutral. Trademark protection must be calibrated in accordance with commercial realities and local competitive risks.

Recourse to the Madrid System, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), may constitute an alternative for Member States such as Bahrain and Oman. However, it does not cover all Gulf countries, making a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis necessary.

Conclusion

In light of rising costs, trademark portfolio management must be reconsidered within a comprehensive strategic framework. Companies should identify priority markets, anticipate renewals, and assess the coherence between legal protection and actual commercial exploitation.

Targeted and controlled protection enables businesses to optimize investments while securing intangible assets in high-potential markets. The response cannot be improvised. It must rely on coordinated strategic, financial, and legal analysis, integrating local specificities and commercial objectives.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property matters by providing tailored advice and comprehensive operational support to ensure full protection of intellectual property rights.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property attorneys.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

Q&A

Which countries are most affected by these increases?
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are among the jurisdictions that have implemented the most significant revisions, but other Gulf states have also adjusted their fee schedules.

Do the increases affect renewals as well?
Yes, the increases apply not only to initial filings but also to renewals and post-registration formalities.

Is there a single GCC trademark registration?
No, despite harmonized rules, there is no unitary GCC trademark. Separate filings are required in each country.

What is the Madrid System administered by WIPO?
It allows applicants to file a single international application, in one language, and designate multiple Member States.

Should companies reconsider their filing strategy in the region?
Yes, a strategic review is essential to align protection with commercial objectives and budgetary constraints.

Is it still advisable to invest in trademark protection in the Middle East?
Despite increased costs, the region remains strategically important due to its economic dynamism and role as an international commercial hub.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.

Introduction

Trademark protection on social media has become a major strategic issue as platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok have established themselves as essential visibility channels. While this massive exposure represents a powerful acquisition lever, it also leads to a significant increase in infringements of intellectual property rights.

We observe that the most successful companies no longer rely solely on marketing presence: they implement a comprehensive strategy combining visibility, SEO and legal protection. In this context, controlling the risks associated with the use of distinctive signs online has become an operational necessity.

Why have social media become essential for trademarks?

A convergence between visibility, SEO and trademark awareness

Social media now play a central role in the digital ecosystem. They are no longer just communication channels but true extensions of trademark identity, visible both on platforms and in search engine results.

In practice, a well-optimized Instagram or TikTok account frequently appears among the top Google results for trademark-related queries. This presence helps control online image while strengthening credibility with clients and partners.

An engagement-driven performance model

Trademark performance is no longer measured solely by audience size but by the ability to generate engagement, particularly among younger audiences. Interactions (comments, shares, reactions) directly influence content distribution through platform algorithms.

In this context, editorial strategy must align with legal protection: poorly managed viral content can generate as many risks as visibility.

Strategic specificities of Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok

• Snapchat: encourages spontaneous and authentic communication, ideal for humanizing the trademark.
  • However, despite their ephemeral nature, content can be captured and reused, requiring basic internal safeguards.
• Instagram: enables the development of a consistent and high-performing trademark image through professional tools.
  • Each published element (photo, caption, hashtag) must comply with trademark law, especially when using third-party distinctive signs.
• TikTok: offers rapid visibility through a powerful algorithm.
  • This virality increases the risk of misuse or misappropriation of the trademark, requiring active monitoring.

What are the legal risks associated with using a trademark on social media?

Unlawful appropriation of usernames

Fraudulent registration of usernames is one of the most common infringements. Third parties may use identical or similar names to capture traffic or create confusion among users.

This phenomenon, comparable to domain name cybersquatting, requires swift action to prevent trademark dilution.

Counterfeiting and unauthorized commercial use

Social media have become major distribution channels, including for counterfeit goods. Fake accounts reproducing logos or promoting misleading offers are increasingly common.

Such practices infringe exclusive trademark rights and may result in significant financial and reputational damage.

Reputational harm and unfair competition

Beyond traditional infringements, social media facilitate:

• Rapid dissemination of harmful content;
• Unauthorized association with a trademark;
• Exploitation of reputation by third parties.

These situations require a nuanced legal approach combining intellectual property and liability law.

Legal and operational strategies to secure your presence on social media

Anticipate: build a coherent digital portfolio

The first step is to secure all digital touchpoints. We recommend in particular:

• Filing trademarks with relevant offices, covering appropriate classes and territories;
• Proactively reserving usernames;
• Harmonizing identifiers across platforms to ensure consistency and recognition;
• Checking the availability of distinctive signs before launching campaigns or products.

This proactive approach helps prevent conflicts and ensures consistent trademark communication.

Monitor: implement continuous trademark watch

Effective monitoring relies on technological tools capable of detecting infringements in real time. This includes surveillance across social media, marketplaces and emerging channels.

The objective is to identify infringements early and limit their impact.

Act: deploy appropriate legal mechanisms

In case of infringement, several actions may be taken. An initial response typically involves a takedown procedure, i.e. a formal notice to platforms requesting removal of infringing content or accounts.

Where infringement is more serious (impersonation, infringement, fraudulent commercial use), a structured approach is required, including:

• Sending cease-and-desist letters;
• Initiating username recovery procedures;
• Bringing legal actions based on trademark infringement or unfair competition.

A rapid and structured response generally leads to effective outcomes, including content removal or account recovery.

To learn more about trademark monitoring strategies on social media, we invite you to consult our previously published article.

Conclusion

The presence on Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok represents a major strategic opportunity, provided it is supported by an appropriate protection policy. Controlling legal risks not only preserves intangible assets but also strengthens long-term competitiveness.

Dreyfus & Associés assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.

Nathalie Dreyfus with the support of the entire Dreyfus team

FAQ

1. Is a trademark vulnerable if it is not active on social media?
Yes. Lack of active presence facilitates abusive registrations by third parties and complicates recovery actions.

2. How can I prove that a social media account infringes my trademark?
Proof relies on demonstrating likelihood of confusion, unauthorized use and, where applicable, damage. Evidence may include screenshots or monitoring reports.

3. How long does it take to remove a fraudulent account?
It depends on the platform and the strength of the claim. A well-documented takedown may succeed within a few days.

4. Can hashtags constitute trademark infringement?
Yes, when they exploit a protected trademark for commercial purposes without authorization.

5. Is a company liable for content posted by its employees?
Yes, liability may arise in case of unlawful publication.

This publication is intended to provide general guidance and highlight certain issues. It is not intended to apply to specific situations or to constitute legal advice.